UN told of mass Darfur killings

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Sure - but then we shouldn't pretend that the government approach to foreign policy of almost any developed world country is not based in any way, shape or form on humanitarian principles.

Right. We shouldn't. When we do say it, it's bullsh!t meant to let us do what we want to do. In the end, it's all about ROI.

Well this might partially answer Dalegg's comment also. If our approach to foreign policy is dictated largely, if not solely by economic as opposed to humanitarian concerns, I have to wonder if it is any surprise that the western world is the target of hatred and terrorism from people and groups in the 2nd and 3rd world.

Granted terrorism is rooted in various political/religious ideologies, if you strip away away our motivations (as you mentioned above) down to the bare bones - it sounds like we want to have our cake and eat it....?

Isn't this the root of terrorism against the U.S and Europe though? Interfering in the affairs of other countries? Particularly muslim countries where radicals would rather die than have us on their land? Suppose some of these militia members gets really ticked off at U.N intervention and decides to hijak a plane and crash it into the U.N. building in retaliation. Now, what was seemingly not our interest is now our interest big time and next thing you know, we're in an all out war against these guys.

Is this an acceptable risk?

Well speaking idealistically again, I would rather face that risk than sit on the fence watching millions of people being murdered. Don't forget that the UN was set up after WW2, to ensure greater international cooperation and bring an end to isolationism, which caused two of the most destructive wars in our history and industrial scale genocide.

Granted the problems that the organisation faces, the fact remains that international cooperation via the UN has more legitimacy than everyone going it alone, which is the dilemma we face in Iraq right now.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Then by the same token should we stop supporting Israel?

But of course. We should support them only as far as they support us. No more of this beacon of democracy, promised fukcing land of the promised fukcing people sh!t.

The UN is corrupt and bureaucratic, but the idea behind it is sound. Admittedlly that's an idealistic argument and an oversimplification perhaps, but if we really are serious about stopping this sort of barbarism it can only really happen as part of an international response.

An international response in which all parties share equal burdens? You know the US and Europe will end up shouldering most of the burden. This is happening in Africa. I wouldn't be against American/European assistance of a joint African effort. But American soldiers in Darfur? No. There are plenty of soldiers in Africa. This is their fight.

i agree with brother arijit..thiis is not a usa problem..but a world issue..and the UN needs to be the ones taking action..usa role as being th police of the world needs to cease..

But again, as arijit pointed out, who will be sent in when the UN "takes action"? The UN has no troops, and most member nations are content to have the U.S. and a small handful of European countries do the heavy lifting.